Template talk:Sidebar military conflict
Dominion War/Infobox Is a page for the infobox really necessary? Surely this code could just be merged into the top of the DW article? Or is this to remedy some format issue? – Cleanse 06:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) New Version I really don't like the newest version of this ( http://memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=Dominion_War/Infobox&diff=next&oldid=742343). The old version (http://memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=Dominion_War/Infobox&diff=prev&oldid=739616) was much cleaner (logos of the sides involved looks nicer than a random battle picture). The new version's "strength" section is entirely devoid of information and is thus entirely pointless. Why bring up something we don't know about? The casualties is also probably info better noted in the article itself. I would like to try to remedy these issues, but frankly I don't understand the new code.– Cleanse 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC) :This new one is awful. It's all done in html rather than proper wiki-code. It's too wide. Too much random bold. I just don't get the point of it. -- Sulfur 04:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC) ::It's a modified copy of the "Military Conflict" template from Wikipedia. And also, it is not all done in html, the codes used are "cross-format" in the sense that it can be classified as both wiki code and html. Nat.tang 07:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC) ::Yes the casualties list should be listed in the article, but also in the infobox as the infobox should be summarizing the subject of the article, in this case an event or military conflict. Nat.tang 07:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC) ::Also, I understand why you like the older infobox, however, this infobox places both sides, more or less, on equal terms. Nat.tang 07:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC) ::: So why does this exist as a subpage, rather than integrated into the main article? --Alan 01:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC) No idea. It should be merged into the article.– Cleanse talk 09:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC) :This exists as a subpage template-ish as a way to reduce the clutter wikitable codes often produce, as such, it provides a cleaner page of wikicodes for those editing to look at. If you wish for it to be moved to the template namespace, I would be more than happy to do so, but I would be opposed to move the table codes into the article. Nat.tang 09:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC) New Template I seem to remember several discussions about the possible usefulness of such a sidebar template - with the outcome that there isn't much, because in the end, we don't know anything absolute about most of the "conflicts" shown or mentioned in the shows... did this change? -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :Not that *I* know of... -- Renegade54 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :: Ditto. As it is, I am still not keen on the *fanon* names we have given half the articles we've compiled on this subject. --Alan 13:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :::Well what an "infobox"/"sidebar" is suppose to do is to summarize what the article is about, in this case military conflicts. As such, all compacted into one information box, we can see: :::#the timeframe(s) in which the conflict occurred :::#the location or area/region of the conflict :::#the results of the conflict :::#the belligerents of the conflict :::#the notable commanders in the conflict :::#the strength of each belligerent of the conflict :::#and finally the casualties and losses in the conflict. :::Iunno bout MA, and I know this is a complete different, unaffiliated project from Wikipedia, but infoboxes are something we have long employed on Wikipedia to enhance each article. Granted there isn't much information on some of these conflicts, and some of these articles are short, but I think, that having an infobox to summarize the infomation found in an article will enhance the article and will even give it a more professional look. Thats my 2¢. Nat.tang 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :: Well, unlike wikipedia, we don't have access to all the information, and with limited canon information, in almost all cases you will not know 6 or 7. I don't mind a sidebar, just not one that consumes the article. --Alan 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :::Well, that is why sections 5 through 7 are hidden until they have been activated. Nat.tang 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Let me just add that the source code (which I'm currently trying to fix) is freaking crazy - let's not put tables in tables in MORE tables to achieve some formatting... -- Cid Highwind 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ::::The code is nutso and it does seem rather pointless to have all of these sections when we don't have the right information to fill most of it in.--UESPA 20:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :::Well, Cid, there is a purpose and logic as to why there are tables within tables. One section's alignment is different from another and so if you combine them, the information is no longer balanced in one section, as in the subheading or section "subtitle" would have equal spacing, when it should really occupy only 20% of the infobox. Nat.tang 20:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Well, the W3C seems to disagree with that "logic"... and I disagree with the revert of my edit, which added several errors back to the code, and still uses a completely different formatting than all the other sidebar templates we have. Please fix that mess, if you won't let others fix it. -- Cid Highwind 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :::Hi Cid, could you clarify what those errors are, and explain to me what W3C is? Regards, Nat.tang 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Errors as in, for example: unclosed tags (now fixed by Sulphur), or completely empty table lines; furthermore, glitches as the unnecessary use of helper templates, direct formatting instructions where available CSS classes should be used for uniformity, leading to different sidebar sizes, and so on... I'd go into more detail, but you might as well check out the differences between your version and mine yourself. As for the usefulness of this template at all: we've had that discussion several times already, I found some references to it here: Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Template:Infobox Military Conflict. -- Cid Highwind 22:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ::I also wonder, upon having looked at the previous discussion about a similar template, how truly useful this template is. I don't see what has changed between the older one(which was deleted) and this newer one. --31dot 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) :::::I think this is actually pretty useful, in terms of some of the information if offers right there in the box. IMO, it's a good idea to allow readers who might only need a quick update or are simply interested in knowing the casualties or the 'noted commanders'. In a question I have, what is the "part of" line for? --Terran Officer 09:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::the "part of" is for battles that part of a larger military conflict. so the First Battle of Deep Space 9 would be part of the Second Klingon-Federation War and the the Second Battle of Deep Space 9 would be part of the Dominion War. Nat.tang 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Issue with this template I can't read half of the sidebar. The font size is so small, the contents are indecipherable. In addition, the use of causes alignment issues, where the previous commander's citizenship ends up directly above the next commander's name. I present at right (click for full resolution) how the sidebar displays in my browser (IE 7.0.5730.11, XP MCE). I cannot find anything useful in the template's labyrinthine coding to alleviate the issues. Let me rephrase that - altering the code in the template does not resolve the issues without causing additional problems. Replacing with does not produce reduced-size text, the font size becomes the same as the rest of the text. The small font size in the other sections appears to be as a result of the table-within-a-table coding: this also occurs with the Babel language boxes when contained within a user's sidebar. Removing this coding alters the formatting of the cells within, the 20% width call no longer functions correctly. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC) :DarkHorizon: I've increased the font size on the sidebar to 11pts. That should help with some visability problems you might have. Unfortunately, I can't see some those problems that you've pointed out. I've tested and retested the templates on different browsers (IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera), on different versions of Windows (Vista, XP (x64, service pack 2, and media center), 2000, and 98 (first edition - and yes it's old but it still work fine. can't play You tube videos that well tho)) and on different resolutions. The issues that I have is with the fact that a fully independent table cannot exist within another, therefore forcing the table within the main table to use the same class as the main table. So in other words the CSS needs, IMO, to be changed. (That's my own opinion and I'm guessing many if not most people don't share that view, and I'm fine with that). Nat.tang 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC) ::What needs to happen first is the removal of all that formatting that makes this sidebar look totally different from all the other standard sidebars we have. That includes sidebar width itself, font size&weight, text-alignment, random padding/margin - I'd do it myself, but I don't feel like wasting my time just to be reverted again. After that, we could have another round of the discussion where we all state that, in fact, we don't know half of that information in most cases, so that such sidebar might not even make sense after all... -- Cid Highwind 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) :::It's still much to small to read (dunno if it's depending on the Explorer, I use Internet Explorer 8). Looks like fontsize 2 or 4. I don't know where the problem lies in the code, so I have to ask: Please someone fix this! ~ Trent_Easton ~ talk 13:51, January 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::With the exception of the "part of" line, this sidebar is using the same font size as all the others as far as I can see. Of course, I'm using Firefox and not IE, so maybe I'm missing something. - 13:58, January 27, 2010 (UTC)